User talk:SWik78: Difference between revisions

{{Talkheader}}

{{archive box|[[User talk:SWik78/November 2007 - March 2008|November 2007 - March 2008]]<br>[[User talk:SWik78/April 2008 - May 2008|April 2008 - May 2008]]<br>[[User talk:SWik78/June 2008 - July 2008|June 2008 - July 2008]]<br>[[User talk:SWik78/August 2008 - December 2008 2008|August 2008 - December 2008]]}}

== Re your note ==

Thanks for your message. The reason I went for semi- rather than full-protection is that there has been a long-running series of edit-warring accounts editing on this and related articles, most (if not all) of which have now been blocked (see the logs at the bottom of the [[WP:ARBMAC]] page). The pattern of these users has often been to instantly return under a sock account or as an IP to continue their disruptive POV-pushing. I'm reluctant to full-protect an article whilst other established editors are actively working on it, but neither should those editors have to put up with endless disruption from new and/or anon accounts.

I can appreciate your concern that semi-protection could give one 'side' an advantage in an apparent content dispute, but I've become wary about treating articles under the ARBMAC provisions in the same way as I would elsewhere on Wikipedia. I think we sometimes do ourselves no favours by extending [[WP:AGF]] too far - on these articles, it seems that all too often POV pushing is mischaracterised as a 'content dispute', and thus we prolong the agony while every good-faith editor feels obliged to jump through all the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] hoops... all the while knowing nothing will be resolved because they're not dealing with someone capable of, or even interested in, working within Wikipedia policy.

My aim is to always do the ''minimum'' required to prevent disruption, so for me full protection is very much a last resort. Now that new/anon accounts are prevented from edit-warring on the article, I will be watching its other editors closely. These all know better, so I'm quite prepared to block should disruption continue, and I hope genuine talk-page discussion will ensue if there really are content issues that need examnining. I hope I've clarified the reasons for my decision, although if you're still unsatisfied you're very welcome to take your concerns up on [[WP:ANI]], or to request a page protection review at [[WP:RFPP]]. All the best, [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]^{[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]} 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for your further explanation. It's now clear to me that I've not acted in the best interests of article quality and editor consensus, so I've amended the protection as you requested and left a note on the article talk page. My apologies, and I appreciate the time you've taken to set things right. All the best, [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]^{[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]} 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

::Because I am sure that you will again jump to article Jasenovac.... Can you write comment on talk page about my proposition ? If it is not OK, say why--[[User:Rjecina|Rjecina]] ([[User talk:Rjecina|talk]]) 12:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

== &#9734; ==

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #CCCCCC; background-color: #FFFFFF;"

|align="right"|[[File:Fromia monilis (Starfish).jpg|thumb|left|200px|[[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]]

|align="center"|[[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">&nabla;.</font>]]</small> 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)]]

|}

:No no, it's waving to say hi. You're excused for not noticing because the waving state is deceptively like the not waving state in a starfish. How've you been? How'd that thing you did in November go? Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">&nabla;.</font>]]</small> 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== White Brazilians ==

Hello... I'm currently having some trouble concerning the White Brazilians article, since a guy called Opinoso seems to believe being the owner of the article, and systematically reverts my edits... Would you be willing to take a look there and let me know what you think about it?

Thanks in advance,

[[User:Donadio|Donadio]] ([[User talk:Donadio|talk]]) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)